Quote from: Pierce InverarityThose labels are bound to get hurt on the profitable part of their catalogue, and they're going to be tempted to take it out on the unprofitable one. Simply by taking less risks. By not hiring this band but rather that one, because that one sounds a tad more like what we already know. By kicking out the other one, after their first CD, while promising, kinda flopped.

That sucks.

This is what apologists for piracy aren't considering; producers of creative material do not have to keep producing that material. If piracy makes it more risky or less profitable to invest time and money in an album or an RPG book, maybe it just won't be made. The big producers will probably keep making material, they'll just become more conservative. When margins get small enough, you can't risk a big failure. Small publishers may decide to bail out of commercial releases altogether.

There seems to be a 'stick it to the man' sentiment in a lot of discussion around this issue. But 'the man' is often just a guy working away on an RPG book in the evenings while the kids are asleep, who just wants at least some some meager financial compensation for his work. If 25 per cent of his potential revenue gets eaten away by piracy, he may calculate that it's no longer in his interest to go through the time and effort of making a commercial prodoct in the first place. Hell, in the RPG industry that 25 per cent if often the difference between a product making money and losing money.

My belief is that the growing social tolerance of free riders will result in worse creative output as it become less profitable to put creative works out there to the public.

Quote from: dansebieThis doesn't have much to do with piracy, though. Growth in other sectors of the entertainment market (DVD sales, console/computer games and mobile services in particular) is the real problem the music industry is facing.

So are people listening to less music? Or has the perceived value of music declined as taking it for free has became so easy?

Quote from: HaffrungSo are people listening to less music? Or has the perceived value of music declined as taking it for free has became so easy?

Actually, people are listening to more music, and listening to music that is not commonly available in record stores or radio airplay. I have late 80s and 90s Britpop MP3s that you simply cannot find in the stores and you can't hear on the radio. Remember, 90% of all recorded music is not made available for purchase - by the choice of the recording label, not the consumer.

And, personally, artists and writers should create and make it available for others' enjoyment because they want to. If an artist is concerned that they are not getting every single penny from sale of their effort, they may want to reconsider their artistic endeavor. The idea that writers, artists, etc. should get wealthy off of their work is a very, very recent one.

Who said anything about getting wealthy? We're just talking about getting money, and having control of what you produce.

You think Shakespeare was happy when people nicked his scripts and performed his plays in some little town somewhere? You think Da Vinci did the Mona Lisa painting out of pure love for his artistry, and didn't get paid?

What's this idea that if I dig a ditch, I should be paid for it, but if I write a book I should do it out of the love of the art? Is this similar to the idea that teachers and nurses shouldn't ask for pay rises because they should just love to teach and care for others?

Funny how every bit of work a person does, they think they should be paid for, but work other people do - well, they should just do it out of love.

If it's worth having, it's worth paying for. And if it's worth paying for, then the creator of that good or service should get the money for it. And a person should have control over what is done with their original work.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWho said anything about getting wealthy? We're just talking about getting money, and having control of what you produce.

You think Shakespeare was happy when people nicked his scripts and performed his plays in some little town somewhere? You think Da Vinci did the Mona Lisa painting out of pure love for his artistry, and didn't get paid?

What's this idea that if I dig a ditch, I should be paid for it, but if I write a book I should do it out of the love of the art? Is this similar to the idea that teachers and nurses shouldn't ask for pay rises because they should just love to teach and care for others?

Funny how every bit of work a person does, they think they should be paid for, but work other people do - well, they should just do it out of love.

If it's worth having, it's worth paying for. And if it's worth paying for, then the creator of that good or service should get the money for it. And a person should have control over what is done with their original work.

I'm actually not disputing that. But anyone who is creating something - say, rpgs - for the sole purpose of getting paid for it IMHO is in the wrong "business".

The fact is that the dynamics of "piracy" are just too complicated to say it's objectively wrong or right. Obviously, it is illegal. Obviously, someone taking someone else's work and profiting from it is what I would consider wrong. But to ignore the positive effects that (for example) peer to peer filesharing can and do create and dismissing it outright as "immoral" is pretty naive.

Quote from: WilAnd, personally, artists and writers should create and make it available for others' enjoyment because they want to. If an artist is concerned that they are not getting every single penny from sale of their effort, they may want to reconsider their artistic endeavor. The idea that writers, artists, etc. should get wealthy off of their work is a very, very recent one.

--snipped-

But anyone who is creating something - say, rpgs - for the sole purpose of getting paid for it IMHO is in the wrong "business".

I'd have to disagree with that.  I don't see a difference between creative skills and technical skills.   If someone has a marketable skill, be it electronics, sports, teaching, or drawing, he should be able to choose a career where he can get paid for it.

Pete

EDIT - Although, yes, the RPG industry is probably not the best career choice if you want to make money.

Quote from: WilI'm actually not disputing that. But anyone who is creating something - say, rpgs - for the sole purpose of getting paid for it IMHO is in the wrong "business".

The fact is that the dynamics of "piracy" are just too complicated to say it's objectively wrong or right. Obviously, it is illegal. Obviously, someone taking someone else's work and profiting from it is what I would consider wrong. But to ignore the positive effects that (for example) peer to peer filesharing can and do create and dismissing it outright as "immoral" is pretty naive.

I am busy being creative so the short answer. You are confusing three separate issues. The morality of piracy, the business implications of FSNs and benefits of FS with morality of FS.
1. Piracy is wrong. No one has presented anything that says otherwise. They have given plenty of rationalizations and reasons someone may do this wrong act but at no point, in my reading, where they have given any type of concrete reasoning that would indicate it is morally correct. "I want to browse before I buy" is not morally correct, it is a rationalization for participating in an immoral act. Now, is it equivalent to killing puppies? No, but you are still just rationalizing a morally reprehensible act.

2. Any business who does not consider piracy in their plans and utilizes it to their advantage, well, I feel bad for them. As a business owner I am well prepared and plan for such things.

3. Do not confuse, at least in my case, finding something morally wrong with dismissing it as a business. I may find something morally offensive but know I must deal with it in the line of doing business. This is one aspect of being professional (at least in my book). So, I may not approve, but I must deal with FSN and piracy. If I can use it to my advantage I certainly will.

As for the sole purpose of getting paid, well, I love to write and I have a skill for business. Combine the two and you get small press. I truly doubt HinterWelt will ever grow to a huge mega-corp. I like writing too much.

Bill

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat's this idea that if I dig a ditch, I should be paid for it, but if I write a book I should do it out of the love of the art? . . . If it's worth having, it's worth paying for. And if it's worth paying for, then the creator of that good or service should get the money for it. And a person should have control over what is done with their original work.

You tack on  the last passage (my emphasis) as if it is a logical extension of the first.  But the ditch digger does not have control over what is done with his original work.  Nor does the secretary, the landscaper, or for that matter most people who work in creative industries and produce works for hire.  The artist and the ditch digger only have a right to be paid if there is a contract to that effect.  Otherwise, they have only the freedom to try to arrange payment - in the ditch digger's case typically by transferring control of the ditch.

Now I suggest that there is a prior contract in place when an artists creates a work:  a contract under which the artist is encouraged to produce and distribute that work in exchange for certain protections enacted by society.  This contract is copyright.

Unfortunately, the contract has broken down as a result of a number of technological, social, and legal changes.  On the one hand, most of society no longer feels obliged to uphold their part of the contract - piracy is the result.  On the other hand, creative industries as a whole have attempted to rewrite the contract to their own benefit by rewriting the law, making many people outlaws while granting themselves (among other things) retroactive benefits.  As things stand now, both groups lack legitimacy.  And, as we have seen, members of both groups claim rights free from any responsibility to adhere to any social contract at all.

A ditch digger does not produce an original work. It's just a ditch, those have been around for thousands of years. You're confusing work with original work.

Many people produce original works and try to sell them individually; they keep the freedom of control, but have to sell the pieces individually, meaning they've an uncertain income from them.

Many people produce original works for hire, giving up their rights to control over their original work in exchange for a steady income.

So for each person producing original work, they have a choice. It's rather like people who work casually, getting a higher hourly rate, but not having a guaranteed income and missing out on holiday and so on. Now, certainly not everyone makes that choice entirely freely. But that's a larger issue than just copyrights and patents.

Quote from: Kyle AaronA ditch digger does not produce an original work. It's just a ditch, those have been around for thousands of years. You're confusing work with original work.

You used the ditch digger as an example of why creators should be paid.  I suggested secretary and landscaper because those are people whose work is more varied and creative.  As for whether they're "original", that depends - I might put a ditch where no-one ever thought of it before, or dig it in a particularly interesting or attractive manner.  In contrast, many so-called "original" works aren't very (Happy Birthday is an extreme example).  You may repeat that this is something for courts to hash out;  from a practical point of view that's true.  But your made a moral claim, so what I'm looking for is a characterization of originality that justifies this demand for control.  (As in my previous posts, I'm specifically concerned with control over derivative works.)

I also find it intriguing that the creator's demand for control over his work sounds very much like Marx's claim that a worker should not be alienated from the product of his labors.  I don't mean this in a bad way, but this argument apparently combines a radical moral position with a mechanism for intergating creativity into the market - in other words, alienating it and producing the opposite outcome from what Marx intended.

Returning to ditch diggers and landscapers, these are poor comparisons with ideas for a variety of reasons.  The one I find most interesting is that whereas many economic processes generate negative externalities, ideas generate positive externalities.  Thus control over ideas reduces positive externalities, effectively making us collectively worse off.

You're being pedantic, deliberately obtuse, and mixing up unrelated concepts.

You post regularly at The Forge, don't you?

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou're being pedantic, deliberately obtuse, and mixing up unrelated concepts.

You post regularly at The Forge, don't you?

Never.  Doesn't interest me.

If I have been pedantic I apologize.  Obviously I'm not making myself clear.  I went to bed without sufficient editing, which I guess makes me deliberately obtuse.

You, on the other hand, have failed to offer any justification for your sudden claim that creators "should have control over what is done with their original work".  Instead you rejected your own analogy with ditch diggers, dodged the issue with an unneccessary explanation of work for hire, then proceded to personal attacks.

Hay its an argument on the internet!
:keke:

Quote from: GeofYou, on the other hand, have failed to offer any justification for your sudden claim that creators "should have control over what is done with their original work".  Instead you rejected your own analogy with ditch diggers, dodged the issue with an unneccessary explanation of work for hire, then proceded to personal attacks.

The ditch digging wasn't an analogy, it was a comparison. An analogy is when we say that something is like something else; a comparison is where we simply compare and contrast things. That's why I explained work for hire, to compare and contrast it with the related but different issue of original work; you were confusing the two in your post. Comparison is not analogy. I did not, then, reject my own analogy, but corrected your bad comparison and mixing-up of things.

People deserve recompense for the work they do. People deserve control over their original work. These are things which cannot be "justified" any more than can be justified a person's right to privacy, right to life, or right to free speech. These are things which are not the result of other bits of reasoning, but are the basis for our reasoning about society.

In any logical argument, you cannot justify everything. You make certain assumptions, and show that those assumptions are reasonable in relation to each-other, and that the conclusions they lead to are reasonable.

When we assume that people have a right to privacy and a right to property of any kind, the assumption that people ought to have control over their own original works is reasonable in relation to these other assumptions. When we look at what conclusions they lead to, that people who are recompensed for their original work will have an incentive to produce more original work and to thereby better society, we find that that's reasonable, too.

The right to control over your original works naturally flows from property and privacy rights. However, these rights are not unlimited, as the rights of the individual and the good of society need to be balanced somewhat, as each benefits the other; we do not describe rights because they have value in and of themselves, but because ultimately we aim at human happiness and fulfillment, and the rights of individuals and the needs of society are means to those ends.

So, the rights are undeniable by any reasonable person, but where the limits ought to be is quite arguable. Life of authour plus 75 years is probably too long; 7 years is probably too short. Some provision for works which have been abandoned by their authours is needed, and really no corporation should ever be declared an "authour", since corporations are immortal, and we do want the things to become public domain someday.

If you do not share my assumptions that people have a right to privacy and to property, then there's nothing I can say to you to justify a right to control over original works, any more than I could justify protection from random killing without your agreeing that we have a right to life, or any more than a mathematician could justify to you that 2x2=4 without your agreeing that 2+2=4. One is the development and natural consequence of the other. It cannot be justified in isolation, it's an a priori assumption.

If you do not share our assumptions about a right to privacy and property, then you are either an undergraduate arts student who will grow up to be a conservative yuppie, or a dirty commie mutant traitor.

Thank you, Kyle Aaron, for your thoughtful response.  Please excuse the length of my reply.

You can posit "people deserve control over their original work" as an assumption, in which case we simply differ on that point.  As an assumption it does not flow from your argument about the right to compensation or your assumption of the right to property, although it may be compatible with it.

Your earlier assertion was actually that people deserve control over what is done with that work.  This entails control over the right of others to produce and control their own original work.  As I argued earlier with HinterWelt, originality is not necessarily obvious, and it certainly isn't absolute.  This is not a theoretical question:  what makes Disney's Snow White original but The Cat NOT in the Hat and The Wind Done Gone?  Or is it your opinion that the right of control should not extend over these derivative works?

If in fact you believe this right to control does flow from property rights, then you may have an argument as to how and why - something that I simply don't see.  You may also be able to explain why this should apply to original work, but not to other work, and what differentiates the two types of work.

As an a more theoretical point, the right to property can be taken as an assumption, or it can be derived on the basis of other assumptions and arguments.  This is true of rights in general.  Some have claimed that certain rights preexist society (people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights").  Some have argued that certain rights are products of society - as (I believe) Thomas Jefferson did of property rights.

In my experience, property rights are not taken as givens, but are justified on moral and economic grounds - e.g. the right to one's labor as a product and reflection of identity (the Marx reference I posted earlier), the economic "tragedy of the commons" argument (usually misrepresented and not reflective of history), or in the case of ideas the claim that exclusive rights act as an incentive to creators.

What becomes really difficult when dealing with property rights over ideas is drawing the divisions between different ideas.  Where you draw these boundaries determines what will be treated as original and what will be treated as derivative.  Ideas are interconnected, but boundaries require separating them - thus the works themselves are changed (and Wikipedia can never be like Britannica, or Linux like Windows).  Finally, how you draw the boundaries - how you conceive of property - influences the wider community or society.  In a commons arrangement, for example, property rights tend to be more narrow and collectively managed.  Property rights over ideas can (and as they stand, I believe do) create a division between groups:  one with the freedom to create, the other which is effectively excluded from or limited in their capacity to do so (we can crudely refer to these as authors and audience, though those labels already presuppose the division and its social impact).